Using and abusing evidence

Dear Davids,

The Lancet report which claimed that 100,000+ people have been killed in Iraq since the US/UK invasion should have been discussed at length in the mainstream press, and it's a scandal that it was so quickly shot down by the flak machine. Having said which, it may be wrong. It may have underestimated the true figure, or it may have overestimated it. Of late Medialens seems to have enshrined a complex statistical argument with a set of possibly incorrect assumptions and a fair margin of error as if it were the simple truth of the matter. I can't help suspecting that if the Lancet had published an article claiming that only 2,000 people had died as a result of Western aggression, then you would have gone looking for another article with a higher mortality figure. And if some other respectable journal publishes an article which claims that 200,000 people have died, then I imagine you will quietly forget the Lancet figure, despite your published admiration for the rigorous methodology of the Lancet authors.

Of course it's important that people be made aware that the level of carnage in Iraq may be far higher than the goverment is claiming, and of course it's important that the government be held to account for its crimes. But it's also important that Medialens doesn't get a reputation for following statistics just because they happen to suit its arguments; that way your authority will be weakened and your political stance damaged. So next time you talk about the 100,000+ dead, could you remember to refer to the Lancet and make it clear that you know that even top academic journals sometimes get it wrong?

Best,
Name Withheld

Thanks. If you check through the 1,200 pages of Media Alerts we've
published so far, I think you'll find that we are careful to use only
credible sources and facts - we do not make claims that cannot be
substantiated by serious evidence. That is not to say that everything we
write is incontrovertible Truth, either, obviously.

The Lancet report is not just another report among many. It is the +only+
credible scientific study of post-war mortality in Iraq. Moreover, it is a
meticulously researched report by one of the top organisations in the field
published in one of the world's most prestigious science journals. The
Lancet editor's claim was highly reasonable when he argued on Newsnight:

"The most likely estimate of excess deaths is 98,000. It's +not+ right to
say that it's equally likely it could be between 8,000 and 194,000. The most
likely figure is 98,000, and as soon as you go away from that figure, either
lower or higher, it's much less likely it will be much lower or higher."
(Richard Horton, BBC2, Newsnight, November 2, 2004)

Professor Richard Garfield, the lead author of the report, told us:

"The true death toll is far more likely to be on the high-side of our point
estimate [98,000] than on the low side." (Email sent to Media Lens reader,
October 31, 2004)

These are very credible people making very credible claims. No one can be
certain of the exact figure - science is not about certainty - but we feel
it is quite reasonable for us to assert, as the authors do, that 100,000
Iraqis have died, most of them civilians. If these authors, or some equally
credible researchers, were to conduct further research and give different
figures, we would certainly reflect these new facts in what we wrote.

It's worth bearing in mind that dissidents challenging the status quo are
expected to meet +far+ more exacting standards of evidence, accuracy and
rationality than mainstream writers. We would be torn to shreds if we tried
to play fast and loose with the facts in the way you are suggesting. The
best defence for people serious about challanging mainstream killing and
exploitation is to be as honest as possible and as rational as possible.
We've always understood that. We are only human, to be sure, but we try to
keep that constantly in mind.

Best wishes

David Edwards